This deliverable first analyzes some integration problems encountered during the integration of the O’CoP ontology that was developed by several ontologists. Then, we describe several experiments of ... [more ▼]

This deliverable first analyzes some integration problems encountered during the integration of the O’CoP ontology that was developed by several ontologists. Then, we describe several experiments of development of CoP-specific ontologies · Natural Language processing (NLP) tools were used by Knowledge Management (KM) service developers for analyzing a corpus of e-mails of the @pretic CoP, so as to develop a “Technical Problem” ontology. We also reused an existing hierarchy in order to build the Ontopedia ontology. Last, the development of the ontologies “Human Problems” and “Learning and Teaching” for the @pretic CoP relied on brainstormings between the CoP mediator and the CoP members. · For the Form@Hetice CoP, the ontology was aimed at being used by the BayFac system offering service of document classification, and was developed by the service developers, with a validation by the Form@Hetice CoP mediator. · For Learn-Nett CoP, the ontology was also aimed at being used by the BayFac system, and was developed by the service developers and the CoP mediator (who was also a member of the CoP), with a continuous validation by a CoP focus group. · For the TFT CoP, tbe ontology was developed manually by the CoP mediator through a folksonomy obtained using tags on the CoP documents, according to social tagging approach. At the end of the deliverable, we compare these different ontologies with related work and we analyze them from reusability viewpoint [less ▲]